Please note that due to the amount of spam posts we have been receiving over the past few months, we have switched Registration to require you to be approved by a moderator. We will go through the approval list as often as we can, but if it's been 24 hours and you haven't been Approved yet or you've received a rejection email, please email myself or one of the moderators immediately so we may correct the application.

We apologize for any inconveniences this may cause, but it's the last resort we have to fighting the spam for now.

Fundamentally, ALL 'things' and 'events' (including 'ourselves') are actually arbitrarily delineated, impermanent 'features' of the eternally cyclic Process of Being (the only Process that ever actually occurs in Reality).

If the ceaseless change that is this Process had an absolute beginning, that beginning would also be the ending of a prior 'beginningless absence of change'. If it had an absolute ending, that ending would also be the beginning of a subsequent 'endless absence of change'. Such a situation is an absolute impossibility.

Therefore, the Process of Being MUST be eternally cyclic.

An eternal 'state of non-being' would ALWAYS be a completely structureless, ever-changeless and infinitely symmetrical state. For this reason, the Process of Being can ONLY be the 'structured ever-changing asymmetry' that It is.

However, the true nature of Reality (that is to say, the actual reason why there is a Process occurring at all, why 'experiencing' happens at particular 'times' and 'places' within It, and in turn, why an illusion of separateness and duality seems to arise in the most complex of these experiences) is absolutely unknowable....

" ...why an illusion of separateness and duality seems to arise in the most complex of these experiences..." How do you know what the most complex experiences are and if indeed a duality is attached to them? Let's go the other way. How do you know that the lesser experiences lack this illusion? I'll take my pedantic prickery one further and suggest that it is "currently" unknowable but not "absolutely" unknowable. Besides, ask anyone around here and they'll tell you the same thing. It's 3.

So I will just talk about the physical universe for a moment, because the meta-universe is outside of what is easily known, but it is probable that a lot of the rules that seem to hold here may also describe the larger picture.

There is this age-old question in philosophy of cosmology..."Why is there something rather than nothing?" Seems like there could just as easily have not been a universe, right? Also, why this particular universe? Why not any number of other ones (And don't bring in multiverse theory here, because that doesn't solve the problem of why THIS particular universe is the universe it is, and not another universe)? It seems there is something deeply arbitrary here. Either... this universe had to exist, and exist exactly as it does, because it was necessary for that to be the case, or else it was a contingent thing- it could have been this universe, or it could have been a slightly different universe... and that is a dense issue.

The question of, "why this particular universe" is pretty hard, but the question of "why this universe, and not nothing?" is a bit easier I think.

There are hints to answer that question in cosmological science and particle-physics. For instance, it is strongly hypothesized that the sum of all energy in the universe is zero. That is... when you add up all the energy in every vector, and all the gravity and matter and such, it all adds up to nothing. That is exhibit one.

Exhibit 2, is that particles and sub-particles will spontaneously come into being, and have been observed doing so. When the local energy in the quantum vacuum is too high in a particular spot, a pair of particles is made, one positive, one negative, opposite spins. Energy coalesces into matter by becoming a pair of balanced opposites.

There is this rule called the "conservation of mass", which states that the mass you have at the start of the event is the mass you have at the end. This is not exactly true, as we know that mass can be created and destroyed using energy as a currency. The rule which does hold is the conservation of energy... energy is not created or destroyed.... except this may not be true either. It may well be that energy is created in the same way mass is... by differentiation into opposites. Potential (non-being) becomes being with a zero sum.

So why isn't there nothing? Nothing might actually be unstable. It might be under direct risk of spontaneously differentiating itself into opposites, in an act of un-directed creation.

So why isn't there nothing? Nothing might actually be unstable. It might be under direct risk of spontaneously differentiating itself into opposites, in an act of un-directed creation.

Sounds like a plausible mechanic. The sun we are trying to touch is the root of causality. I think most people can contend with the logic that reality systems can have a true casual beginning if they exist as a nested system.

Suppose that the highest conceptual level that exists for us is primordial consciousness, and it can exist spontaneously through opposites. For me this infers that conscious existence is potentially infinite because the spontaneity needs no cause and thus has unlimited time and existence on its hands.

I find infinite existence to be unsatisfactory - it undermines my sense of purpose. There is still parts left unanswered though, what is the medium? All of the reality systems we know about have a medium. A quantum vacuum seems like a real medium. The spontaneous primordial consciousness has a medium that we arbitrarily label the source.

Its Matryoshka dolls all the way up and all the way down trying to grapple with this.

The answer to that question is so far beyond our reach it is almost unfathomable, hehe. No matter what we know about our current reality, we can't get past what you can call "Cartesian Doubt", because every reality frame may still be nested in another, matryoshka style, like you said. So say this world is a simulation, or a created reality controlled from one level higher, or an illusion, etc... how do you know when you are looking at the top?

Maybe we can side step the issue of knowing when we are at the outermost layer of reality and assess the model directly with some assumptions on the possible branches that could exist.

If there is no outer layer, you have an infinite cascade; it poses some annoying problems so maybe we can drop that logical branch as being unlikely or supremely mysterious and unknowable.

If there is an outer layer it is the true origin of existence. I think this implies that something can come out of nothing. There is no practical way of knowing how long ago the something came about, but it gives us a finite existence.

Other alternatives may exist - perhaps when you get beyond the outer most loop of the consciousness layer, any logical conception we have is invalid.

Its still a really unsatisfying tree. All three branches seem to dead end before anything world breaking is learned.

This video here may be of interest to you guys. It seems that "Jim Carrey" the actor/comedian, has had a awakening of sorts too. Now he talks about we are nothing that comes from nothing, so, don't sweat the small things! He said "It's a big pageant of nothing, rising from nothing and happening for no one and that once you understand that, all the pressure is off and you can just enjoy yourself. Jim's been spreading his "words" lately to all that will listen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UK6mfmPg4A

Logged

Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere." Albert Einstein

To be successful with Astral Projection/Non Physical Exploration, your will to succeed must be much stronger than your acceptance of failure!

Doesn't that only apply as a retrospective process? Nothing can be a valid concept permitted that there isn't anything around to label it. Nothing and something are both self fulfilling in that sense.

Possibly you need a binary/opposite in order to understand either. Can't know hot without cold. Good/evil. Something/nothing. Maybe they can't exist without opposite, but in this case, nothing is nothing and shouldn't exist but created, like zero.